In his contribution to Forum Studies and Globalization in Quarterly 78.2 (2005), Frank Trommler warns against a globalization of Studies that conceals its linguistic origins. Citing Jonathan Arac's concern about the diminishment of language-based criticism in favor of a monolingual master scheme(Arac cited in Trommler, 241), Trommler argues that a transnational mode of writing strongly shaped by English language does not do justice to particularity of cultural experience. His concern rejoins topic of other Forum much in Studies? addressed by Margit Sinka and William Donahue in Quarterly 78.4 (2005). I would like to respond here to both topics, for I see them as intimately related. question of how much should be used in Studies courses and whether content might be more profitably taught in English is an age-old debate in our field. This debate is prompted only in part by low enrollments and need to attract to our programs students with no proficiency in German. It also reflects a neoplatonic belief that language is but a transparent conduit for expression of ideas. Ideas, not language, are thought to have priority in content courses. And, notwithstanding a venerable tradition of linguistic relativity that started with Herder and von Humboldt, belief is widespread among American Germanists that ideas in Studies can be equally well expressed in English. Both language studies and cultural studies are involved in this debate. Language teachers, who feel responsible for helping their students develop usable language skills in meaningful communicative situations, naturally would like to see content courses taught in German, as would some upper-division students, especially if they have just returned from studying abroad. Cultural studies instructors, who see their role as discussing complex ideas, either do not feel linguistically up to task, if they are not native speakers of German, or, if they are native speakers, they believe that American students cannot possibly express in more subtle nuances of their (English) thoughts. Thus it is often felt that readings and term papers in upper-division literary or cultural studies courses should best be discussed in English. Advocates of using have focused on how use of in classroom can provide opportunities for advanced language practice, i.e., for increasing students' language communicative proficiency. But, to borrow Sapir's phrase: The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely same world with different labels attached (69). debate has not focused on best way to enhance students' understanding of link between words and German worlds, between forms of language and worldviews of those who utter these words. It has not considered relationship of patterns of language and patterns of thought, of language structures and social structure. For example: How does a speaker's utterances express and construct cultural values prevalent in his/her society or community? How does a writer's style bespeak social norms and generic conventions of a given group of writers, be they located in Berlin-Kreuzberg, Heidelberg, Zurich, Vienna, Cleveland, or on internet? How do concepts associated with such cultural topics as Multikulturalismus, Bildung/Erziehuttg, Meinungsfreiheit, Toleranz, Democratie translate or not translate into American English? Where are areas of convergence/divergence? These and other questions are directly related to language-culture nexus in Studies. This nexus used to be taught in translation courses and in close reading of texts. In these courses, whether language of instruction was English or German, words were analyzed and weighed for their multiple denotations and connotations, deictic positionings of their speakers/writers, illocutionary force of their speech acts, their metaphors and rhetorical figures, their intertextual resonances, and for what they revealed about social and historical contexts in which they were uttered. …
Read full abstract